User talk:103.217.166.181

October 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at News.com.au. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hair444y (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Sendle, you may be blocked from editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sendle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

All information provided regarding Sendle is 100% factual. please refer to the current class action against sendle for fraudulent practice.

so am i able to link to the productreview.com.au page stating all the negative reviews and the law firm compiling the case? The thing that worries me is half the information you have listed on them isn't factual. They DO NOT have Australian based staff and the business address is a shell (mailbox only with no office). Proven fact..

Notification: Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

so am i able to link to the productreview.com.au page stating all the negative reviews and the law firm compiling the case? The thing that worries me is half the information you have listed on them isn't factual. They DO NOT have Australian based staff and the business address is a shell (mailbox only with no office). Proven fact..[Citation needed]
 * I'm sure you also planned to state all the positive reviews which outnumber the negative ones more than 3:1, giving an average rating of 4/5 (for comparison, Australia Post has an average rating of 1.7/5)? But no, reviews at productreview.com.au are user-submitted content without meaningful editorial oversight; that's not a reliable source. And you surely also planned to link to the law firm defending them (I assume there is one), too? But no, again, that's not a reliable source. If there are newspapers or reputable magazines reporting on the court case, we could cite those, just as we cite those reporting on Australia Post suing them for trademark issues.
 * I don't see where our article claims that they do have Australian based staff or that their business address isn't a shell. However, there's the Sydney Morning Herald which said in 2015 that they have a staff of 14 who "share an office with TuShare in the trendy inner-Sydney suburb of Glebe". Are you saying the Sydney Morning Herald got it wrong? Let them know about it and I'm sure they'll publish a correction. Then we can talk about adding such claims to the article. Huon (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm Tol. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Australian Unemployed Workers' Union seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)